Seemed like I processed 100 files concatenated a lot quicker But I didn’t do any exact testing you may Be right
> On Oct 6, 2020, at 3:30 PM, Paul Gilmartin > <0000000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:56:21 -0400, Joseph Reichman wrote: >> >> I posted a problem last week regarding allocating a concatenated dataset a >> few of you (Seymour,Paul Gilmartin) suggested that when processing the 4,608 >> VB (huge) files >> > (I believe Lizette offered a similar suggestion.) > >> That rather then concatenate them and when I reach the limit deco catenate >> them >> >> I just process on file at a time >> Alloc >> Open >> Read >> Close >> Unalloc >> >> Well this process is taking forever. I initially ran the program under TEST >> and it took 3 wall minutes to get to the 58th file >> > How does that compare to the time it takes to process the 58 concatenated? > Doesn't concatenation need the same 58 calls to DYNALLOC to allocate plus > one more to CONCAT? > > But concatenation might spare some OPEN/CLOSE/EOV overhead. > > Does TEST make a difference? > >> I am wondering whether BSAM with above the bar option would be worth the >> effort if it sped things up > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
